openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation
Date Fri, 04 May 2007 19:35:01 GMT
> I see a discontinuity in calling the
> project OpenJPA if in reality the project implements JDO and so forth.

I agree; there is a logical disconnection here.

> If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API pluggable/selectable

The engine is very well-separated from the API as things stand now,
and the API is pluggable / selectable...

> and the project is planning on implementing other APIs then a name change seems
> reasonable as it would not be representative of what we are providing.

... however, currently, the OpenJPA project only supports JPA
bindings. I'd like to see other bindings for OpenJPA, but as things
stand right now, things happen to line up nicely.

> If we are to go down this path then I would further suggest we separate the
> engine and implementing APIS into separate jars/packages as it is wasteful an
> potentially dangerous to package all implementations together.

This can actually be done today. The only distribution that the
OpenJPA community has published to date is a monolithic jar, but given
how the build process works today, it'd be fairly trivial to do
something else.

I don't think that we should change the name right now. We (the
OpenJPA community) have built a name around the community, and there
are currently no plans that I know of to add new APIs on top of
OpenJPA. I think that we can always change the name of the underlying
engine at a later time with minimal disruption.

If we do decide to change the name, I'd strongly suggest that we
create a TLP with some other more-flexible name, and then
simultaneously create a project within that TLP called 'OpenJPA',
which publishes a distribution that looks much like the current
incubating releases. Then, new API bindings could be started as
sub-projects within that TLP, rather than actually creating separate
projects.

-Patrick

On 5/4/07, Phill Moran <pjmoran@rogers.com> wrote:
> Without getting any nastier let me explain. I see a discontinuity in calling the
> project OpenJPA if in reality the project implements JDO and so forth.
> If we can separate the engine from the API and make the API pluggable/selectable
> and the project is planning on implementing other APIs then a name change seems
> reasonable as it would not be representative of what we are providing.
> If we are to go down this path then I would further suggest we separate the
> engine and implementing APIS into separate jars/packages as it is wasteful an
> potentially dangerous to package all implementations together.
>
> That is all this little piece of the community has to say.
>
> Phill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dain Sundstrom [mailto:dain@iq80.com]
> Sent: May 4, 2007 2:50 PM
> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate from Incubation
>
> On May 4, 2007, at 10:50 AM, Phill Moran wrote:
>
> > Would we then not have to change the overall name from JPA to
> > openPersistence or some such?
>
> That would suck.  I see no reason we would "have to change" the name.  It is a
> choice of the community.
>
> > Why not let another project lift out the engine and adapt JDO/SDO/ETC
> > and maybe we remerge the projects later.
>
> I would hate to see a fork.
>
> > Maybe this idea works if we can fully separate the API from the
> > persistence engine as it does not make sense to go into production
> > with several unused API being deployed.
>
> It is already separated.
>
> -dain
>
>


-- 
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907

Mime
View raw message